TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT decision on assessee's appeal: re-verification ordered, adhoc disallowance upheld, claim restoration under scrutiny</h1> <h3>M/s. Janseva Majoor Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Versus The ITO 18(3) (2), Mumbai</h3> M/s. Janseva Majoor Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Versus The ITO 18(3) (2), Mumbai - TMI Issues involved:1. Disallowance of charges paid for work under section 194C without subcontract.2. Disallowance of amounts without TDS deduction under Section 40(a)(ia).3. Adhoc disallowance of mobile and vehicle expenses.4. Disallowance of claim under section 80P(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act.Analysis:1. Disallowance of charges under section 194C:The assessee contended that not all labour charges were subject to TDS as they included material costs. The AO disallowed charges without TDS, leading to a dispute. The ITAT found the AO's approach summary and lacking specific findings on the application of Sec. 194C. The issue was restored to the AO for re-verification with directions to consider details provided by the assessee and apply Sec. 194C appropriately.2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia):The AO disallowed a significant amount of labour charges without TDS. The CIT(A) confirmed a reduced disallowance of &8377; 5.69 crores. The ITAT noted the need for re-verification and directed the AO to decide the issue afresh, considering the details furnished by the assessee. Grounds of appeal related to this issue were allowed for statistical purposes.3. Adhoc disallowance of expenses:The CIT(A) confirmed adhoc disallowance of mobile and vehicle expenses. The ITAT upheld this decision, stating that there was no evidence presented to show that the adhoc disallowance was unjustified. Grounds of appeal related to this issue were dismissed.4. Disallowance of claim under section 80P(2)(vi):The assessee raised a claim under section 80P(2)(vi) before the CIT(A), which was dismissed as it was not made in the return of income. The ITAT disagreed with this decision, stating that the Supreme Court's decision cited by the CIT(A) did not apply to appellate authorities. The issue was restored to the AO for examination as per the provisions of law. This ground of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.In conclusion, the ITAT partly allowed the assessee's appeal and allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes. The judgment highlighted the importance of detailed verification and proper application of relevant provisions in tax assessments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
